MPAA Starts Backing Away, Slowly, From Bogus Piracy Stats (But New Bogus Stats Are On Their Way)
from the about-time dept
We've been among the many, many people who have highlighted the MPAA's penchant for using totally bogus "piracy" numbers in arguing for why it needs ever stronger copyright laws and enforcement. Others have stepped in with thorough debunkings as well, including its favorite "$58 billion" in losses that was bandied about regularly during the SOPA fight. The Government Accountability Office famously mocked the MPAA's piracy claims as totally unsubstantiated, in part because the MPAA wouldn't even explain the basis for the numbers it used.It appears that so many people now realize that the MPAA's claims on "losses" from piracy are so ridiculous that even the MPAA has decided not to use those numbers any more. Buried in a longer Wall Street Journal piece by Carl Bialik is this tidbit:
But the MPAA is focusing elsewhere, and no longer citing the earlier studies, after an internal review that followed the SOPA debate, MPAA spokesman Howard Gantman said. “At the current time we do not actively cite the figures directly relating to movie piracy, as the landscape has changed significantly since these studies were conducted both regarding the growth of broadband and the development of streaming technology, as well as the introduction of hundreds of new sites world-wide for viewing legal online content,” Gantman said.That's not to say that the MPAA has suddenly become reasonable. The rest of that article highlights other, highly questionable, attempts by the MPAA to justify its maximalist agenda, including new research, some of which seems to rely on similarly questionable methodology. But, at the very least, it appears that the "old" bogus numbers have been so discredited that even the MPAA won't use them any more.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One question
Where are these 100s of sites for viewing legal content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Speaking of bogus numbers, when are you going to have an honest discussion on the merits as to the value of the articles Swartz downloaded from JSTOR? You've claimed that the feds had to fudge things to get to that $5,000 threshold, yet he downloaded millions of articles that sell for about $20 to $40 each. Why can't you have an honest discussion about that? I mean, clearly you're all about looking at the actual numbers, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prediction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Snore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/08/megaupload_piracy_study/
Which even Mike doesn't question as to fact, only quibbles with obvious conclusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Only when they support his cause. Otherwise... not so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
Anyone who pays and buys a study to be conducted will always have the results to be shown in their favour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One question
The beauty of monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
Aer you really that desperate, boy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2vevtGotO1rr6cyuo1_400.gif
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
That must be empirical evidence, because it was a study that was done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
Maybe he should get checked out for dementia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
* Amazon adds 5000 videos to Amazon Instant Video and begins heavily promoting it on their site
* Hulu starts getting real traction by adding advertising allowing them to expand their catalog.
* A number of networks decided to follow some form of the route taken by South Park by hosting streams for their own shows/movies.
* Digital download editions of physical media began to be sold
* Walmart offers a digital transfer service that allows consumers to copy their DVDs to a digital format
I'm sure there is more.
So while shutting down megaupload may have had an affect on piracy the numbers are questionable due to the fact so many other big shifts to digital happened in the same few years and gained traction all around the same space of 12-24 months.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: One question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
ALWAYS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone stole all the tea again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Still, this shows why government established media monopolies for private use should never be tolerated. Abolish government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One question
As usual, it likely depends on the details... If I look on my Roku box, they advertise 700 "channels", and there are a number that have legal Hollywood movies to stream. Not that they are any good, but they are available (during a specific viewing window to be determined by the rights holder)...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One thing doesn't make sense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
Odd, actually, that you'd say that when I actually wrote a three part series of posts about it, in which I actually noted that I thought the methodology was sound.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If MPAA is going sue prirates for loses they should be at least able to prove where these loses occured - if these loses where proveable at all should they not be reported on there tax returns or in their accounting books? Much like lost revenue due to items in stores?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
You see that? THE MPAA created an organization a while back so it could say "ah but this study wasn't funded by us"..but the whole study-group itself was paid for by the MPAA in the first place....there was just a delay between that and the studying being done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One question
For example, in Spain there's no Netflix, Lovefilm, Hulu, etc. but there are a couple of Spanish broadcasters that stream the content they show - mostly locally produced shows with few movies. There's also an on demand service with cable providers, but these aren't available in most places, or another service tied to certain ADSL contracts. Especially when looking at movies, the selection is very poor compared to the UK, and the UK's selection is pathetic compared to the US. It could be claimed that Spain has 7 or 8 legal sources by the broadest criteria, but until a Netflix is allowed to service the market, it's not a real alternative for large sections of the consumer base.
So, they're technically correct that if you count up the number of sites available in the world, there's hundreds. But, sites available worldwide, as in you can access them no matter where you happen to be at the time without having to resort to VPNs and other trickery? Virtually none.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Please don't abuse AC with logical reasoning!
[ link to this | view in thread ]